tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 11:47:20 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC tlhIngan yot - 'ay' cha'DIch

-----Original Message-----
From: Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: KLBC tlhIngan yot - 'ay' cha'DIch


>"I make you understand the information," however, is weirder. This is
>properly <De' qayajmoH>. Why? Because the agent is a pronoun. One could say
><SoHvaD De' vIyajmoH> but this seems to stress the YOU in the sentence more
>than is usually intended. (I used <vI-> since the object here is
>"information". I used <qa-> before since there's canon I can't recall which
>allows this usage when dealing with a pronoun as the agent.) "I make Torg
>understand the information" is still <torghvaD De' vIyajmoH>, though.

I don't speak on this topic often, because it is the area of ground I find
shakiest (mostly due to the sparse [one] examples and slight TKD-warping).
Indeed, it isn't the double-object problems of this construction that I am
addressing now.

I don't think that actually saying a pronoun not in a "to be" construction
automatically stresses it.  For one thing, it may also simply be there to
clarify, when used as either subject or object of the verb.  For another,
because using prefixes to indicate indirect object is not addressed in TKD,
it is likely to be newer, or perhaps less-accepted grammar than using
{-vaD}.  (I am sure Okrand gave us this explanation simply to cover for
mistakes made earlier with prefixes, made due to the nature of the English
originals.)  If {SoH} is the indirect object, the beneficiary of the action
as opposed to the person or thing acted upon, it may be used with {-vaD}.
You can't have a noun suffix hanging out there all by itself, so you can't
drop the {SoH}.  Sure, you can change the verb prefix to shorten the
sentence, but what happens if you've got multiple pronouns?

maHvaD jIH choHoH SoH.
You killed me for us.  (Maybe I was a danger to the group or something.)

Normally, we might see this as

maHvaD choHoH.

Does this mean that {maH} is being emphasized?  No.  And I don't think you
can say {jIH juHoH}, but even if you could, does this mean that {jIH} is
being emphasized?  No.

Take an example from TKD p.180.

 chaHvaD Soj qem yaS
The officer brings them food.

There is no other way to say this.  Does this mean that {chaH} is being
emphasized?  No.  It's simply the placement of a pronoun with {-vaD}, and
this cannot always be shown with a prefix.

There are simply times when it's necessary to say a pronoun when you're not
trying to emphasize it.

Another problem is: if you're shortening indirect object references, you can
say {taj qanob} "Give me the knife," but does this mean that you can say
{SoHvaD taj qanob}?  I seriously doubt it.  As far as we know, the prefix is
only changed to shorten the sentence, it doesn't actually mean that it
always represents the indirect object.  The correct sentence would be
{SoHvaD taj vInob}.

I honestly don't know if you can say {De' qayajmoH}.  I would say that
combined with Okrand's explanation of indirect object prefixing, it's the
best argument in support of the transitive causation theory (or whatever you
want to call it).

>At least that's how I've come to understand it. SuStel, do I FINALLY have
>it? :o)

Ask charghwI'.  It's his baby.

SuStel
Stardate 97885.8

Back to archive top level